Author: Andrew Sullivan

Fallows puts the Haiti death toll in context:

According to the latest news I've seen, at least 45,000 people have died in the Port au Prince earthquake. Haiti's entire national population is less than 10 million. Something like one out of every 220 people has been killed.

Megan thinks we will effectively be running the country:

Half the budget was provided by foreign aid before the earthquake.  For the next few years, we will effectively hold government power there, whether we want to or not, because we'll probably essentially be providing all of its funding, and can threaten to turn the taps off unless things go as we demand.

A reader writes:

Funny to read your take on the MA scare because three minutes ago I had the opposite thought, which was: will someone someday (okay, maybe me in a few hours..) step back and conclude that the Democrats performed brilliantly this past year?

For all the bites taken out of HCR legislation by myriad constituencies, it remains a remarkably well-crafted bill — and so many of the fights over things that could have devolved into gross interest group giveaways have played out in public (like the excise tax) and been negotiated sanely, with many features of what was originally the Baucus bill improving through negotiation (though it's not over). Instead of 'moralizing' the difficulties — they are failures of Democratic strategy and character — look at the structural impediments that those with a decent and public-minded take on the core architecture of the bill have faced down.

First among them is no help from the Republicans. The stonewalling of 40 Senate Republicans on this bill is nothing short of disgusting. As Paul Starr has pointed out, the bill represents an essentially Republican approach to HCR – its chief tenets were proposed by Republicans in the Eisenhower, Nixon and even Gingrich-Dole eras. As Ezra Klein has pointed out repeatedly and in multiple ways, Republicans could have got major concessions, e.g., tort reform, if they'd negotiated in good faith.

Working down from Republican intransigence: Democrats won their majorities in large part by coopting what passes for the center in this government- and tax-phobic electorate. Blue Dog Dems are fulfilling the natural role of Republicans. But the Democratic party is starting the process down forty votes. The same dynamic held for the stimulus package. On climate control, there is no way to reasonably expect action from Democrats without some cooperation from Republicans. When one party is completely dysfunctional, that distorts the functioning of the competent party. There is no center because the center is the sound of one hand clapping.

It's staggering to me that this callow charlatan is supported by people who call themselves Christians. There is no way for anyone who is not a monster to respond to the fathomless tragedy of Haiti by immediately using it to attack a political opponent, and implicitly to urge people not to donate ("We've already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax.”) But you will find no criticism on the Christianist blogs, or any peep from the alleged "religious" right. And given a chance to apologize and retract, Limbaugh simply dug in further, saying the following to a female caller who challenged his moral compass:

“What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a blockhead. What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a close-minded bigot who is ill-informed. If you had listened to this program for a modicum of time, you would know it. But instead, you’re a blockhead. Your mind is totally closed. You have tampons in your ears. Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read.”

The man who race-baits on a regular basis responds to a woman caller by telling her she has tampons in her ears. Now remember that Limbaugh is one of the de facto leaders of Roger Ailes' Republican party. An enthusiastic supporter of torture and of the abuse and murder of innocent prisoners at Abu Ghraib, he is nonetheless worshiped by a theocon like Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Tweets from inside the court house are relaying Michael Lamb's testimony on parenting and child development (FDL and Courage Campaign are live-blogging). The best tweet of the morning:

AmerEqualRights Prop. 8 proponents' cross-examination so far has brought up Carrie Prejean, "Will & Grace," and studies from 1954 #Prop8

More after the jump with newer tweets at the top:

TheAdvocateMag #prop8 lawyer making case that in general men are like homer Simpson–generally less intelligent, more prone to addiction, more troubled.

NCLRights Thompson is apparently arguing that men are dumber than women. Interesting tactic… #prop8

FedcourtJunkie Thompson trying to show that having both a man and woman is better for kids, women live longer, etc.

NCLRights Lamb agrees that there do exist some differences between men & women on avg. in our society. #prop8

Chris_Stoll Thompson trying to use discrediting of Freud and early 20th century anti-gay science as evidence science can be wrong. #prop8

NCLRights Thompson seems to be questioning value of entire scientific & peer-review process. Thinks all are tainted by politics. #prop8

NCLRights Thompson suggests funding for studies comes from interest groups. Lamb: No, usually from government. #prop8

ellemenohpe Def atty trying to disprove Lamb's testimony by demostrating that he is a liberal. God forbid he supports NOW and ACLU! #prop8

ellemenohpe Lamb: "Children who are adopted are just as likely to be well adjusted as those who are being raised by their biological parents" #prop8

FedcourtJunkie Lamb: marriage is good for children, allows them to accrue some of the benefits like social recognition #prop8

NCLRights McGill: "Any way prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying would benefit kids?" Lamb: "No." #prop8

ellemenohpe Lamb: kids' ability to establish appropriate relationships with peers is the same whether their parents are straight or gay. #prop8

Chris_Stoll Lamb: Research shows that kids raised by LGBT parents no more likely to be sexually abused. #prop8

Chris_Stoll Lamb: No evidence kids raised by LGBTs no more likely to become gay. #prop8

NCLRights Lamb: Refutes claim that "12% of kids of lesbians become lesbians"–very study cited showed NO difference in outcomes. #prop8

Chris_Stoll Lamb: Numerous studies using a variety of samples and methods conclude kids raised by LGBT parents are just as likely to be well adjusted.

TheAdvocateMag #prop8 children do not need masculine or feminine parent to thrive. They just need good parents. This is the overwelming consensus of field

ellemenohpe Dr. Michael Lamb has just taken the stand. A child psychologist from Cambridge, looks like he'll speak re: kids of GLBT parents. #prop8

Chris_Stoll Lamb primary area of study is factors influencing child development and adjustment. #prop8

A reader writes:

Just saw your post lashing out at Coakley as a “hack machine” politician.  I understand your sentiment about one party rule and breaking that mold.  But this Brown guy is not the moderate Bill Weld type Republicans who could serve this role.  Here is what he said about “enhanced interrogation techniques”:

[Brown] endorsed yesterday the use of enhanced interrogation techniques – including the practice of simulated drowning known as waterboarding – in questioning terror suspects. The point drew a quick rebuke from [the Coakley camp], which said she supports President Obama’s ban on waterboarding. … Brown asserted that waterboarding does not constitute torture, but he did not specifically say Abdulmutallab should be subjected to waterboarding.

This guy is particularly bad because he was a JAG for goodness sake.  I hope he loses, and badly.

If this relatively moderate Republican from the Northeast is pro-torture, it reveals how torturing prisoners and abandonment of the Geneva Conventions is now a central pillar of the GOP platform. That’s why I couldn’t support him and the Dish will not endorse him. From his pathetic op-ed yesterday I also infer that his alleged moderation is a cover for the same old Republican refusal to tackle spending even as they refuse to raise taxes. I wish he were part of Frum’s solution. I suspect he isn’t in the slightest.

A reader writes:

Over Christmas, my brother and I paid a visit to the other side of our family. They live as far as they can from an urban center, and are distrustful of “citified” people, though they make an exception for my side of the family, even if we are looked upon as somewhat freakish. They are Red Staters trapped in a Blue State (Washington), and resent it. They are nominally Christian.

None (save one 2nd cousin, who has run away to attend the university I tutor at in the city) have graduated from high school, having left early to take up some form of manual labor. One of my cousins, a meth addict, disappeared years ago in Idaho. Another, a year younger than I (47) is a grandmother dying of cirrhosis of the liver. Another cousin has three daughters, all of whom are on welfare, have multiple kids from different men, spend their days playing video games when not getting new tattoos and tramp stamps at the nearest mall. All are obese and chain-smoke. All routinely refer to President Obama as “the nigger.” All watch Fox News in between bouts of video games.

Some of them have seen jail. Two of my cousins had been, up until a few years ago, given to reading romance novels and lurid true-crime books. They now have taken to buying the books of Hannity, Coulter, et al.

On this visit, we found that Sarah Palin’s book had become the Christmas gift of choice for most of them. Whether they’ve read it or not, she was the primary topic of their conversation. They adore her. “She speaks like us,” one aunt said, almost tearfully. “She’s one of us.” Their anger, impotent at the moment, seems to be growing. My brother and I made a hasty retreat out, as we were neither of us in the mood to engage these family members in debate. Why? To what end? But nor could we just stay and listen to these deluded, rambling speeches. Worse, we felt chilled by the experience.

The next American revolution really will be led by an ignorant rabble with pitchforks.

Lexington's take on the health care deal struck by the unions:

It is as if George Bush had said: "Join the National Rifle Association and we'll cut your income taxes."

Suderman:

[T]hat bribe will most likely come at a direct cost to others. Exempting unions is expected to reduce the $150 billion in revenue the tax was supposed to raise by about $60 billion. So in order to make up for the lost revenue, it’s entirely possible that Democrats will expand the Medicare payroll tax to cover investment income.

Megan thinks this is just the beginning:

[U]nions get a special two-year exclusion from the tax. Presumably, the unions plan to go back and get their exclusion extended every few years.  Otherwise, the deal doesn't make much sense.

Yglesias counters:

How on earth are the unions supposed to get this extended every two years? Is the view that the GOP will never have a majority in the House or the Senate or control of the White House? Is the idea that the anti-union Democrats who killed the Employee Free Choice Act will have a conversion on the road to Damascus? Perhaps all sixty of the Democratic Senators who voted in favor of a version of this tax that did no favors to the unions whatsoever all had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they did this? In a system with as many veto points as we have in the United States, default rules matter. A lot.

A reader writes:

I was intrigued by the evidence on Amazon that suggests that Catholic clergy are buying lube online. I have now spent much more time than I should have trying to find a similar pattern of purchasing by adherents of other religions.

Check this out. The people who are buying Kosher for Passover soup stock online are also buying manual razor blades. I would guess that the majority of people who purchase Kosher for Passover soup stock are some level of Orthodox. It is technically prohibited for Orthodox men to shave using old-fashioned manual razor blades (although some people who call themselves Orthodox might use them openly). You have to click on the right arrow to get to it.

A reader writes:

I can believe that, in running for the seat, she seems like nothing more than a tone-deaf machine hack. It’s certainly been a flaw of MA politics for a long, long time. However, for just about my entire childhood, Martha Coakley was a superb District Attorney. I can assure you, she had an inordinate amount of talent in that position, and as Attorney General. A “hack with very little talent,” she is not.

Another adds:

Why is “Stating that al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan” a blunder?

It is largely true.  No transnational plots by AQ have been run out of Afghanistan since before 9/11.  Yeah, there may be a handful of AQ affiliates running around Afghanistan – particularly in Haqqani Network areas – but they are not playing a major role.  Indeed, in recent months, with Mullah Omar guilty of what Zawahiri has condemned as the sin of nationalism, there is a lot of AQ/Taliban tension irrespective of the recent cooperation in setting up the CIA operatives.

Another reader defends Brown:

Regarding fiscal policy, repeatedly and as recently as Monday's debate Scott has mentioned holding the line on spending.  This is certainly easier said than done, but I think that his record on Beacon hill bears this out.  More importantly in Monday's debate Scott supported the Conrad-Gregg bill to create a bipartisan fiscal task force to address the nation’s long-term budget crisis, which includes entitlements.  You can watch for yourself here at around the 24:40 mark.